Samsung will now fill the void by making chips for the likes of Qualcomm and even for its own products

If Apple and Samsung's turbulent relationship was made into a soap opera, this episode would feature continued separation between the two and Apple's "other lover."

Apple recently signed a new supply deal with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) for iPhone and iPad chips. These orders from Apple will reportedly account for 8 percent of TSMC's 2014 total revenue if Apple buys 30 percent of its chips there, according to Credit Suisse analysts.

If Apple bumps this up to 60 percent in 2015, it will make up 15 percent of TSMC's revenue for that year.

Apple has been distancing itself from Samsung due to competition between Apple's iPhone and Samsung's Android-powered smartphones (such as the Galaxy line). The two have also had an ugly patent war that has soured relations over the years.

Apple's new deal with TSMC isn't great news for Samsung, but it will likely fill the void by making chips for the likes of Qualcomm and even for its own products.

[Image Source: Nerd Array]

At the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) back in January, Samsung's President of LSI business Stephen Woo said that it's crucial for the South Korean electronics maker to focus on alternatives to Apple when it comes to the chip sector. In fact, Samsung has been supplying Exynos quad-core chips to Chinese smartphone company Meizu and also to Lenovo's K860 LePhone.

According to Goldman Sachs, Apple will purchase about $8.8 billion USD worth of chips from Samsung this year, which is about 80 percent of Apple's allowance for processors, memory chips and screens. But Apple is expected to move 30 percent of its business away from Samsung next year and about 80 percent by 2017.

It's unlikely that Apple will give all of its chips business to TSMC, since it doesn't want to put all of its eggs in one basket. TSMC will begin supplying the processors in early 2014.

Chips aren't the only hardware Apple and Samsung are phasing out in their relationship. Samsung Display, which has provided Apple with liquid crystal display (LCD) panels for its iPhones and iPads over the years, officially severed its contract with the iDevice maker last fall. Samsung cited cost as the main issue, since Apple has started using Samsung competitors with better prices for displays. Hence, Apple was expecting bigger discounts from Samsung.

I have large west facing windows in Southern California. If you're seeing nothing but reflections while the display is on then something is wrong. If you have a large window is directly opposite the display then obviously it would be light having a giant light being reflected and a matte LCD would be batter, but that isn't an ideal setup no matter what kind of display you have.

Every plasma I have ever seen, which is primarily in stores has the same glare. It's not just if there is a window facing it. It's always there, even under normal lighting... It's basically a mirror and you can see everything going on in the room. There isnt anything wrong with my setup or in every store I have even been in. If plasma is in the dark, its perfect, if there is any light at all, it's aweful to me, period. I don't like glossy LCD's on my laptops either for the same reason.

Do you really think that the rather large majority of people that buy TV's go into the stores and say "I think I like the more expensive one with the poorer image quality the best" and then buy it? No, LCD sells for a lot of reasons. There are benefits to it and there are negatives to Plasma. I mean, I can understand if you say the glare doesn't bug you... Why cant you understand that it does bug others? You also arent mentioning the heat. MAybe you dont feel it up on your soapbox? ;)

"Even if there was more glare on Plasma - it still wouldn't justify your comments, which were not specific to your use case - such as claims that 'nobody cares about plasma'."

There IS more glare on plasma, by a large margin and you know it. And my comments? You said it first about something that sells in much higher volumes. If there is any 1 of the 2 that no-one cares about its definitely Plasma. IQ or not.

Showrooms with warehouse style lighting and all the TVs set in torch mode are the absolute worst place to evaluate image quality.

Even a room with large west facing windows in the afternoon has better conditions with which to look at IQ.

The main place LCD has an advantage is when a window is directly opposite the display. Anything that isn't matte will be like a mirror showing that window clear as a bell. Then again, you'll get a slight diffused reflection with a matte display too. Having a window anywhere reflected in a display is bad no matter what, that's why mine is at a 90 degree orientation to my own windows which flood my living room with light in the afternoon.

quote: LCD sells for a lot of reasons.

The main one being marketing. LCDs have much higher profit margins and are cheaper to ship since they weigh less. This means that companies will do their best to market them over plasmas, even their own. This in turn drove plasma prices down to compete, at the expense of their profit margins.

The thing is that LCDs with all of the hacks to try and come up to plasma level (local dimming, motion smoothing and interpolation, etc etc) end up costing more and more as the band-aid electronics pile up (all while adding input lag which sucks for gaming). They still cost more than a plasma that looks better.

This is a golden era for plasmas, the best IQ and value they've ever had, and people are suckered in by more expensive LED-backlit local dimming 240hz nonsense. Marketing works!

You talk like you think everyone is stupid. Do you really think I haven't looked at Plasmas in plenty friends homes? Lighting does change you know. Sometimes I have this light on and sometimes that light is on. Sometimes the sun is shining on the side of the house where the TV is and the light that creeps through the wood blinds is distracting with a glossy screen. That is exactly the point. I dont want to have the glare under any circumstance, regardless of the time of day or lighting at that moment and neither do alot of people. I want the best IQ at all times and in my house with my life, LCD gives that. The slight improvement in IQ is meaningless when seen through a glare. I see it in low light on a matte screen as it is, it's just WAY more noticeable on Plasma and it bothers me. FFS, give some credit. Not everyone that chooses differently than you is ignorant.

Let me put it this way, maybe it will make more sense... My life, family and home do not revolve around my TV. My TV needs to fit into my life. Better?

Takin is the worst kind of tech elitist. If he likes something, it's the best. No if's-and's, butts. No possible alternative can be offered.

As if none of us have researched this? He says burn-in isn't an issue anymore, yet every website out there admits that while plasma's are "better", the problem isn't completely solved in all sets. Image retention is a real issue, no matter what he claims.

I mean I could go down the whole list. There's pro's and con's to everything.

Also why do I get the impression he's comparing the best plasma's to the worst LCD's?

I guess next he'll claim that Plasma's last longer than LCD's and use less power too. I mean why not, he knows everything about everything.

The fact that he's trying to argue with you about plasma vs LCD brightness tells you all you need to know. There's not a single credible source out there who's claiming Plasma's have anywhere near the brightness of LCD's. You're dead on, if there's any sunlight coming into the room or bright lights in general, the Plasma's image gets hosed.

Oh another great "feature" of Plasma's is the audible high-pitch whine the sets make when they draw more power to display bright scenes. Oh and speaking of power, my god lol, a large plasma uses 500 to 600 watts!!!

You have to love his logic as to why plasma's are dirt cheap and on their way out of the market basically. Gee you would think for such a superior premium item, someone would find a way to profit more from it.

By the way I just bought a new Ferrari for $10k today. Yup all those stupid ignorant masses buying Honda Accords and Kia's are forcing the high-end manufacturers to slash prices! Didn't you know? That's how things work in TakinVille....

LOL. I know, WTF? It's a total Deja Vu. Assume the things that are important to him are what should be important to everyone, ignore all negatives of your choice and positives of the other choice and anyone that disagrees is "ignorant".

And yes, it does suck that plasmas are losing out to the solution that is being sold more aggressively. I understand the advantage LCD has in terms of brightness and matte screens, but the number of people making truly informed decisions between the two is incredibly low.

quote: As if none of us have researched this? He says burn-in isn't an issue anymore, yet every website out there admits that while plasma's are "better", the problem isn't completely solved in all sets. Image retention is a real issue, no matter what he claims.

Image retention <> burn-in. Even LCDs have IR, not to mention worse IR than I've seen on my plasma.

quote: Also why do I get the impression he's comparing the best plasma's to the worst LCD's?

Not only am I comparing the best plasmas against the best LCDs, I'm comparing plasmas against more expensive LCDs.

Better image quality isn't going to be on the more expensive LCD, there are inherent issues to LCD that CRT, plasma, and OLED do not have.

quote: I guess next he'll claim that Plasma's last longer than LCD's and use less power too.

Plasmas are rated to last 2-3 as long as LCDs, 100k hours as opposed to 30k-60k you get with a CCFL and LED backlit LCD.

Any of these are plenty of lifespan for anyone, but plasma definitely is better in this respect. Not relevent since its so much time, but you're the one who brought it up.

I'd never say that plasmas are brighter than LCD. If brightness is more important to you than picture quality, go for it. You'd need an incredibly bright room with no curtains and sun going right on the monitor for this to be that important through. I have sun in my living room most of the day and a plasma is fine.

quote: Oh another great "feature" of Plasma's is the audible high-pitch whine the sets make when they draw more power to display bright scenes. Oh and speaking of power, my god lol, a large plasma uses 500 to 600 watts!!!

What decade are you living in, whine hasn't been a problem for years. As for power, right now a beautiful 60" Panasonic plasma will average about 150w.

600 watts, where are you getting these numbers from?

quote: You have to love his logic as to why plasma's are dirt cheap and on their way out of the market basically. Gee you would think for such a superior premium item, someone would find a way to profit more from it.

Samsung and Panasonic will market their cheaper to produce and ship LCDs over their own plasmas despite plasma's superior image quality. This is well known and it isn't rocket science. This is why people who want the best image quality will get a plasma, and why people who either don't know any better or who value brightness will get an LCD instead.

I'm surprised how angry you are about the simple stating of objective advantages of a technology, especially one that costs as much as or is cheaper than the "high end" version of something else. You should chill.

You make it sound like plasmas are as sensitive to lighting conditions as a projector. It simply isn't the case. Once you have the picture on the reflections aren't there in most practical situations.

I understand if brightness and reflections are an issue, but you make it sound so absolute. LCD is an objectively extreme downgrade in picture quality but believe me, I do understand if there are legit physical constraints preventing you from having one.

Do you have windows directly opposite your screen? Did CRTs just drive you nuts ten years ago?

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer